Nigel Lawson calls time on the three-pint Eurosceptic heroes

The former Tory chancellor is right about leaving the EU, and closet sceptics
will have to accept it, says Ukip's leader

When a group of unknown political players set up Ukip in 1993, the idea that the UK might someday re-establish its independence and leave the European Union was at best a minority pursuit. Now, no less a man than Lord Lawson advocates the ideaPhoto: Getty Images

It’s a lot less lonely now. When a group of unknown political players set up Ukip in 1993, the idea that the UK might someday re-establish its independence and leave the European Union was at best a minority pursuit. Now, no less a man than Lord Lawson advocates the idea, and validates Ukip’s arguments. Clearly nobody now doubts that it is a valid position. The reaction to Lord Lawson’s view has been to ask what damage it will do internally, to David Cameron’s embattled Conservative Party, and there has been speculation about the timing of the statement.

Famously, “Dave” told his troops that they shouldn’t “bang on about Europe”. He was trying to defang an issue that had bedevilled the Tory party since the Maastricht days. But now, with this intervention, and the last week or so of headlines, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. He might not be banging on about Europe, but everybody else decidedly is. Lord Lawson’s intervention has just added to the legitimisation of the debate and has highlighted the historic split.

Rarely has such a chasm opened up in British political history. The Europe divide has echoes of earlier times; it is Big Politics, writ in a digital age. Its ability to tear apart the political consensus must be compared with the way in which the Corn Laws and Irish Home Rule changed the game for the establishments of the day.

There is, of course, a difference between those of a conservative mindset, across the political spectrum, and those who sit on the Government green benches. Out there in the country, the idea of being an independent nation is something that is greeted by a “Quite right, Guvnor!” type of statement. It’s seen as stating the obvious. In the confines of the Westminster bubble, in contrast, it has the capacity to make liars of the best people. I have a personal measure of four varieties of Euro-honesty, and almost all Conservatives (and quite a few elsewhere on the Coalition and Opposition benches) fall into it somewhere.

First, there are those who are true believers in the project, like Laura Sandys and Ken Clarke. They are clear as to their beliefs that Britain is a failing construct, that we cannot and should not ever leave the European Union. Then there are the “usual suspects”, such as Philip Davies and Douglas Carswell, who have for years prosecuted the idea that Britain would be better off out. Between these poles are a third group: those who follow the party line. They talk as if they were sceptical, as David Cameron is wont to do, but believe, with him, that whatever offer they are given by Brussels, in the end we must remain in. The most interesting category, however, about 100-strong, comprises what I would call the “three-pint heroes”. They give the government line, but after a few libations will say, sotto voce: “You know what, Nigel. I agree with you. When the vote comes I’ll be voting for an out.” I cannot remember how many times that I have been told this, though always “strictly between ourselves, old bean”.

The problem for these three-pint heroes and for Mr Cameron is that Lord Lawson has got to the very quick of the matter. When he says, with the weight of his enormous experience, that any negotiations with Brussels will produce nothing but “inconsequential concessions”, he is speaking a dark truth. What we will see is nothing more than the Wilson renegotiations in the Seventies that will be trumpeted and applauded by the establishment as a great victory for the Prime Minister and Britain, as these things always are. Nothing of any substance was achieved in the Seventies, nor will it be today. A concession – such as being allowed to catch herring in the Solent – doesn’t wash. By highlighting this, Lord Lawson has done us all a great service. Now at least there will be those who are looking at the famed renegotiations with a critical eye, and those doing the looking can no longer be described as anything other than mainstream.

When we look at this European Union of ours and see Pierre Moscovici, the French finance minister, demanding that EU has its own central treasury and a common tax base, when we see the imposition of iron austerity via the ministrations of Chancellor Merkel, the very idea that Mr Cameron can come back with anything other than window dressing is nigh on laughable. He cannot: that is not how Europe works.

What is more, as anybody who has ever been in business will tell you, he is going into these negotiations near-naked. He has said, and repeated so often even his own cloth-eared backbenchers might have noticed, that he has no intention of ever leaving the EU. What this means, in practical terms, is that he is going into these negotiations speaking softly, but not carrying a big stick. If the Prime Minister was seriously trying to negotiate real power back to Westminster, then he would make it very clear that if he did not get what he wanted he would recommend withdrawal in any upcoming referendum. Not to do so sets him apart as an amateur in the game. Brussels will welcome him, with dinners and high diplomatic grace, and laugh into their silken hankies at his naivety. Why on earth would they take him seriously? Without the direct threat of withdrawal he is merely kicking the can.

I am not prepared to wait until the end of 2017, four-and-a-half years, for an insubstantial renegotiation. I cannot trust Mr Cameron, and, I would suggest, nor can anybody else. If he really thinks it is good enough, well all I can say is roll on the European elections in 2014. The Ukip flash in the pan is about to get much bigger.